-
Posts
545 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Gallery
Events
Store
Everything posted by RadheyRadhey108
-
I agree. [if I stated any different, I mis-spoke. This is my own opinion also.] Oh. Maybe I misunderstood you? I have a source where I will look into Sarasvati's Birth. Okay.
-
1- Thx, I was more asking for a verse pertaining to Her birth, though. Which, that wouldn't prove anything anyways, since Krishna has incarnated multiple times... including in His own original form... and appeared to be 'born' and 'die', but that doesn't prove that Krishna is a demigod. Similarly, Saraswati could have incarnated in a body like Her spiritual from. 2-Where do the verses say that Saraswati will die? It doesn't even mention Her birth, let alone Her death. 3-Where? 4-So, do you think Saraswati is one of these eternal 'servants'? And, if so, then how do you know that She's a demigoddess based on Her (supposed) 'servitude'? Lakshmi serves Vishnu, does that make Her a demigoddess? 5-There is no difference between a Goddess and a Devi (since Devi is just the Sanskrit word for Goddess), but there is certainly a difference between a demi-goddess and a goddess: a demi-goddess (e.g.- Urvashi, Menaka, etc...) isn't purely divine and is susceptible tp Karma, while a goddess (e.g.- Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati) is entirely divine and isn't susceptible to Karma because all of Her activities are in play, or Lila. 6-Uh, I'm pretty sure that's what I just said.
-
Well, you pasted it on this thread, too. Here, I'll paste my refutation of your shastric 'proof' of Saraswati being a demigoddess here as well: How does this: Lord Brahma presented King Prithu with a protective garment made of spiritual knowledge. Bharati, the wife of Brahma, gave him a transcendental necklace. Lord Vishnu presented him with a Sudarshan chakra, and Lord Vishnu's wife, the goddess of fortune, gave him imperishable opulences. --Bhagavata Purana 4.15.16 So, does this include Radha and Krishna?: Sage Kardama, husband of the great Devahuti, was manifested from the shadow of Brahma. Thus all became manifested from either the body or the mind of Brahma. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.27 If not, then how can you prove it is also not talking about Saraswati? Again, how is this proving that Saraswati Ma is a demigoddess?: Thereafter Brahma accepted another body, in which sex life was not forbidden, and thus he engaged himself in the matter of further creation. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.49 And, how exactly does this prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess?: While he was thus absorbed in contemplation and was observing the supernatural power, two other forms were generated from his body. They are still celebrated as the body of Brahma. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.52 Prabhupada, who is your teacher, just says they are the bodies of the first man and first woman... he doesn't even name them, and neither does the scripture. Where does this verse even mention Saraswati?: The father, Manu, handed over his first daughter, Akuti, to the sage Ruci, the middle daughter, Devahuti, to the sage Kardama, and the youngest, Prashuti, to Daksha. From them, all the world filled with population. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.57 Saraswati doesn't even live on earth. She lives in Brahma-Loka. Once again, no mention of Saraswati/Bharati: In the beginning of creation, Lord Brahma, the father of the living entities of the universe, saw that all the living entities were unattached. To increase population, he then created woman from the better half of man's body, for woman's behavior carries away a man's mind. --Bhagavata Purana 6.18.30
-
I'll post this again, since you put this on (at least) two threads: 1. How does this...: Lord Brahma presented King Prithu with a protective garment made of spiritual knowledge. Bharati, the wife of Brahma, gave him a transcendental necklace. Lord Vishnu presented him with a Sudarshan chakra, and Lord Vishnu's wife, the goddess of fortune, gave him imperishable opulences. --Bhagavata Purana 4.15.16 ...prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess? Sri Lakshmi Devi Ma and Sri Narayana are also mentioned in this verse, so are they demigods, too? So, does this include Radha and Krishna?: Sage Kardama, husband of the great Devahuti, was manifested from the shadow of Brahma. Thus all became manifested from either the body or the mind of Brahma. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.27 If not, then how can you prove it is also not talking about Saraswati? Again, how is this proving that Saraswati Ma is a demigoddess?: Thereafter Brahma accepted another body, in which sex life was not forbidden, and thus he engaged himself in the matter of further creation. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.49 And, how exactly does this prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess?: While he was thus absorbed in contemplation and was observing the supernatural power, two other forms were generated from his body. They are still celebrated as the body of Brahma. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.52 Prabhupada, who is your teacher, just says they are the bodies of the first man and first woman... he doesn't even name them, and neither does the scripture. Where does this verse even mention Saraswati?: The father, Manu, handed over his first daughter, Akuti, to the sage Ruci, the middle daughter, Devahuti, to the sage Kardama, and the youngest, Prashuti, to Daksha. From them, all the world filled with population. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.57 Saraswati doesn't even live on earth. She lives in Brahma-Loka. Once again, no mention of Saraswati/Bharati: In the beginning of creation, Lord Brahma, the father of the living entities of the universe, saw that all the living entities were unattached. To increase population, he then created woman from the better half of man's body, for woman's behavior carries away a man's mind. --Bhagavata Purana 6.18.30 2. Bhakti means [religious] devotion. Religious devotion (bhakti) can be expressed to any deity. Someone who chooses devotion as their way of unification with God is a Bhakta, regardless of whether they are Shakta, Shaiva, or Vaishnava.
-
I don't believe in Prabhupada's philosophy, so he isn't shastra for me. Your quote from Prabhupada isn't cutting it. Sorry. 1. So, now you think that Radha is less than God? Less than the Ultimate Reality? Even your teacher stresses devotion to Her! 2. How does this...: Lord Brahma presented King Prithu with a protective garment made of spiritual knowledge. Bharati, the wife of Brahma, gave him a transcendental necklace. Lord Vishnu presented him with a Sudarshan chakra, and Lord Vishnu's wife, the goddess of fortune, gave him imperishable opulences. --Bhagavata Purana 4.15.16 ...prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess? Sri Lakshmi Devi Ma and Sri Narayana are also mentioned in this verse, so are they demigods, too? So, does this include Radha and Krishna?: Sage Kardama, husband of the great Devahuti, was manifested from the shadow of Brahma. Thus all became manifested from either the body or the mind of Brahma. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.27 If not, then how can you prove it is also not talking about Saraswati? Again, how is this proving that Saraswati Ma is a demigoddess?: Thereafter Brahma accepted another body, in which sex life was not forbidden, and thus he engaged himself in the matter of further creation. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.49 And, how exactly does this prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess?: While he was thus absorbed in contemplation and was observing the supernatural power, two other forms were generated from his body. They are still celebrated as the body of Brahma. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.52 Prabhupada, who is your teacher, just says they are the bodies of the first man and first woman... he doesn't even name them, and neither does the scripture. Where does this verse even mention Saraswati?: The father, Manu, handed over his first daughter, Akuti, to the sage Ruci, the middle daughter, Devahuti, to the sage Kardama, and the youngest, Prashuti, to Daksha. From them, all the world filled with population. --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.57 Saraswati doesn't even live on earth. She lives in Brahma-Loka. Once again, no mention of Saraswati/Bharati: In the beginning of creation, Lord Brahma, the father of the living entities of the universe, saw that all the living entities were unattached. To increase population, he then created woman from the better half of man's body, for woman's behavior carries away a man's mind. --Bhagavata Purana 6.18.30 3. Bhakti means [religious] devotion. Religious devotion (bhakti) can be expressed to any deity. Someone who chooses devotion as their way of unification with God is a Bhakta, regardless of whether they are Shakta, Shaiva, or Vaishnava.
-
It certainly does affect bodily functions! One of the first things Alzheimer's usually affects is the urinary tract and the bowels. People with Alzheimer's often lose all control of their urinary tract and bowels because the part of the brain that controls that is (for some reason) usually one of the first parts affected. Later, short-term memory is affected, which leads to confusion. Over time (which can be anywhere from a few months to several years), they start losing even long-term memory and basic reasoning skills. If Alzheimer's is able to progress in it's fullness, it is fatal (organs start shutting down as the parts of the brain that control them die).
-
I wish you made as much sense to the rest of the world as you do to yourself L I tried to look at the ones for Saraswati, but I couldn’t seem to find one reference to Her in the verses that appeared to be cited. Can you name the verses that mention Her? So, you don’t think we existed before our bodies came into existence? Glad you claim to follow the Gita, LOL "As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death." --Bhagavad Gita 2.13 "For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." --Bhagavad Gita 2.20 "As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones." --Bhagavad Gita 2.22 So, Lakshmi Devi is now under the authority of Brahma?
-
Although I personally believe that dementia is not a disease but the natural shut down of the human brain after misusing the human form of life, still it seems there's light at the end of the tunnel of this epidemically spreading phenomenon, also known as Alzheimer's. Dementia most certainly is a disease. It is the precursor to Alzheimer's which is the physical destruction of the brain (neurons get tangled up with brain-cells, the part of the brain they get tangled up with die, and that part of the brain can no longer be used). It's a real disease, it's not just forgetfulness. It's the slow and gradual destruction of the brain's tissue. I think you need to learn more about what the causes are and what it does before you decide that it's just some 'natural process caused by a misuse of human existence', and not an organic mental disease.
-
Bhaktajan, why did you copy and paste your response to me three times in the same thread?
-
How did you 'bust' me or 'expose' me? It's not like I hide that I accept various paths in Hinduism. So what if I honor the Devas and Devis (which, the name translates as 'Shining One', not 'demigod' or 'demigoddess'). Oh, BTW, you misspelled 'nuncio'. What do you mean? You make it like I'm doing something horribly wrong for honoring the Devas and Devis. Her name means She of the Pools, or, alternatively, She who Flows. She is a river goddess... duh. Once again, your family tree proves nothing. Saraswati as goddess of learning is the incarnation of Maha Saraswati, who is the incarnation of the Maha Devi. Lakshmi Devi, the Bride of Lord Vishnu Himself, emerged from the Ocean of Milk. Did She not exist in spirit before-hand? Radhika, Lord Krishna's Beloved and an aspect of Himself, was born from the corolla of a lotus flower and became Vrishabhanu's daughter. Is She not supreme and did She not exist prior to Her incarnation? Your family tree proves nothing other than that the Devas and Devis have taken form.
-
Bhaktajan, Rudra is an incarnation of Lord Shiva. He is Lord Shiva in His wrathful form, as son of Brahma. It's like how Lord Narayana took the form of Lord Rama and was the son of Kausalya. That doesn't mean that Lord Narayana didn't exist before His birth to Kausalya, it just means He took the form of Ram, son of Kausalya. Similarly, Lord Shiva took the form of Rudra, son of Brahma. Your 'family tree' proves nothing.
-
Saraswati isn't a demigoddess. She's the goddess of the arts, the Vedas, and learning. She was originally a Vedic river goddess (much like Ganga), but later became equated with the goddess Vak (who is also mentioned in the Vedas). Students often worship Her.
-
How? Do Catholics exist independent of Catholicism? Do Buddhists exist independent of Buddhism? Do Jews exist independent of Judaism? Well, I suppose there are aspects of their lives that don't require their faith, but they wouldn't be Hindus, Catholics, Buddhists, and Jews without Hinduism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Judaism. HOWEVER, Bhakti can easily exist completely independent of Vaishnavism. Bhakti can be expressed in Shaktism, Shaivism, etc... Not to mention that Bhakti has existed for thousands of years before ISKCON. So, they are definitely seperate entities. ISKCON relies on Bhakti. She doesn't rely on ISKCON. Does Bhakti exist independently of Shaivism, Shaktism, and Vaishnavism? The Nayanars are just as old as the Alvars... so we don't know who 'took' the bhakti movement from who. I was pointing out that there are bhaktas that aren't Vaishnavas. There are Shaiva Bhaktas and Shakta Bhaktas as well. In your list you put "Bhakti/Krishna Consciousness". But, Bhakti can also be Shakti Consciousness or Shiva Consciousness. So, the point of all this is that Bhakti IS. She exists independent of every religion, yet She is in every religion.
-
You do realize that the Bhakti movement exists independent of Vaishnavism and Krishna Consciousness/ISKCON, yes?
-
No, we differ from every other religion in the known world in that none of us actually believe anything written in our own scriptures. We just pretend like we do for fun.
-
Who Is Lord Krishna Legal Consort Radha Or Rukmini
RadheyRadhey108 replied to pujarie five o's topic in The Hinduism Forum
Bhaktajan: Exactly, there is a chief Gopi. Whether Her name was Radhika or not is irrelevant. Radhika is the name given to the chief Gopi mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana. -
Who Is Lord Krishna Legal Consort Radha Or Rukmini
RadheyRadhey108 replied to pujarie five o's topic in The Hinduism Forum
Why are Garga Samhita and Brahma Vaivarta Purana not accepted? They aren't that well known, but that doesn't mean they aren't accepted. Brahma Vaivarta Purana is a legitimate Purana. Why wouldn't it be accepted? -
why not mushrooms in our food?
RadheyRadhey108 replied to nitai16108's topic in Spiritual Discussions
It's something about how mushrooms are tamasic or rajasic or something like that. I think the rule is silly, and I don't follow it. Then again, though, I'm not a follower of Prabhupada. -
Who Is Lord Krishna Legal Consort Radha Or Rukmini
RadheyRadhey108 replied to pujarie five o's topic in The Hinduism Forum
Shvu is picking and choosing which sources for Krishna's life are legitimate and which aren't. He's leaving off two critical sources: Brahma Vaivarta Purana and Garga Samhita. -
Who Is Lord Krishna Legal Consort Radha Or Rukmini
RadheyRadhey108 replied to pujarie five o's topic in The Hinduism Forum
How do you know what is 'authentic' and what is not? Were you present for the writing of either the Garga Samhita (which is held to be written by the Devarishi Garga) or for the Brahma Vaivarta Purana (which is held to be written by Brahma Deva Himself)? If not, then how can you determine if it's legit or not? Are you God? Are you Krishna? If not, then how can you be certain who Krishna was lover to and who He wasn't? How can you be certain He didn't love Radhika as Himself? There are scriptures that say that He did, so the cult of Radhika is legit, whether you admit it or not. And, they are legitimate sources. They're as legitimate as any other Purana or Samhita in Hinduism. Or, do you not believe in the Puranas and Samhitas? Because, if you reject all of them, then I can understand why you wouldn't accept them as legitimate sources. But, if you believe in even one of them, then it's hypocritical to proclaim, for example, Srimad Bhagavata Purana as truth, but then throw away Srimad Brahma Vaivarta Purana.